Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » wow how machivellian......folks actually are dumb enough to fall into the trap

wow how machivellian......folks actually are dumb enough to fall into the trap

5 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

2seaoat



I am beginning to question the initial incompetence of the web site. There are thousands of developers who should have known the restriction on concurrent users on certain data bases. The glitches and the fun which was made set such a low expectation, that now the President once again looks like a champ.

I am now doubting this was all by accident. It fully allowed the critics to commit to the failure of ACA based on a numerical count, and then those critics have been thrashed about for the last two weeks and look like utter fools. The President plays chess. All the while the news was focused on this sign up numbers game, very little coverage has happened on the supposed withdrawal from afghanastan. Also, it is highly suspicious the way the Ukranian crises has unwound as the Europeans have solidly supported the President. The cries that the president is weak and Putin will walk all over him, just like the cries that he was a war monger and was going to drop bombs in Syria, all seem to be manipulated. Is he really this smart, or is he simply lucky as he looks like one of the best presidents this country has had in 30 years? I do not think some of this was an accident.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:I am beginning to question the initial incompetence of the web site.  There are thousands of developers who should have known the restriction on concurrent users on certain data bases.  The glitches and the fun which was made set such a low expectation, that now the President once again looks like a champ.

I am now doubting this was all by accident.  It fully allowed the critics to commit to the failure of ACA based on a numerical count, and then those critics have been thrashed about for the last two weeks and look like utter fools.  The President plays chess.  All the while the news was focused on this sign up numbers game, very little coverage has happened on the supposed withdrawal from afghanastan.  Also, it is highly suspicious the way the Ukranian crises has unwound as the Europeans have solidly supported the President.  The cries that the president is weak and Putin will walk all over him, just like the cries that he was a war monger and was going to drop bombs in Syria, all seem to be manipulated.   Is he really this smart, or is he simply lucky as he looks like one of the best presidents this country has had in 30 years?  I do not think some of this was an accident.

I highly doubt this. And, judging by recent approval ratings, a majority of Americans also do not approve of President Obama's performance.

2seaoat



I highly doubt this. And, judging by recent approval ratings, a majority of Americans also do not approve of President Obama's performance.



Going back to Reagan these are the highs and lows in approval

President

Highest Approval Rating Lowest Approval Rating
Obama
76% 39%
Bush (G.W.)
92 19
Clinton
73 36
Bush (G.H.W.)
89 29
Reagan
68 35

Pretty clear that the President has the best low numbers and had better high numbers than Clinton and Reagan both considered successful presidents. It is looking like this guy is going to have a very favorable historic rating based on his continued success.

boards of FL

boards of FL

You also have to account for the fact that the high ratings of each Bush benefited from a war and 9/11. The second Bush was all downhill from day one, sans 9/11.


_________________
I approve this message.

2seaoat



I actually am a big Bush 1 proponent. I really think he has always been underestimated in both his role in bringing down the berlin wall, and his ability to get a consensus in international relations. I also think he was one of the most decent men we have ever had for President, and the first victim of the Dixiecrats who suprisingly later supported his son.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:I highly doubt this. And, judging by recent approval ratings, a majority of Americans also do not approve of President Obama's performance.



Going back to Reagan these are the highs and lows in approval

President

Highest Approval Rating                            Lowest Approval Rating
Obama
76%                                                                  39%
Bush (G.W.)
92                                                                       19
Clinton
73                                                                       36
Bush (G.H.W.)
89                                                                       29
Reagan
68                                                                       35

Pretty clear that the President has the best low numbers and had better high numbers than Clinton and Reagan both considered successful presidents.  It is looking like this guy is going to have a very favorable historic rating based on his continued success.


Looks like your figures on Obama have been, ahem, “adjusted”.  I searched high and low for a reliable reporting of 76% - didn’t find one.

Per Gallop:  Obama’s high: 69% in January 2009. Obama’s low: 38% in March 2011.  Further, Gallup notes that Obama’s ratings continue to decline. Could be due to the “troubled” ACA, Benghazi debacle, downward median family income, his blocking of the Keystone Pipeline, increased poverty and SNAP usage, ballooning the National Debt to (currently) $17,500,000,000,000, double-digit unemployment rates for persons of color. All of this, and more, under the guidance of the Obama administration.

But you have one thing right – using the term Machiavellianism in regards to Obama.  Oxford defines it as “the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct", and that Obama has done.

On a lighter note – Michelle Obama’s ratings hold steady, better than First Lady Hillary Clinton’s, but not as good as Laura Bush’s.

KarlRove

KarlRove

2seaoat wrote:I highly doubt this. And, judging by recent approval ratings, a majority of Americans also do not approve of President Obama's performance.



Going back to Reagan these are the highs and lows in approval

President

Highest Approval Rating Lowest Approval Rating
Obama
76% 39%
Bush (G.W.)
92 19
Clinton
73 36
Bush (G.H.W.)
89 29
Reagan
68 35

.
All freakin' lies

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

2seaoat wrote:I actually am a big Bush 1 proponent.  I really think he has always been underestimated in both his role in bringing down the berlin wall, and his ability to get a consensus in international relations.  I also think he was one of the most decent men we have ever had for President, and the first victim of the Dixiecrats who suprisingly later supported his son.

His father was a Nazi financier, for God's sake. You should read FAMILY OF SECRETS.

2seaoat



http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/presidential_approval.html

Your research skill correlate with your wrongly held opinions.

2seaoat



His father was a Nazi financier, for God's sake. You should read FAMILY OF SECRETS.


so what? Using that standard President Kennedy was the son of a bootlegger and his and President Bush's heroism in World War 2 are negated by some kind of stigma of birth.......you are very prejudiced.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/presidential_approval.html

Your research skill correlates with your wrongly held opinions.

I’m assuming this is directed at me.

“Wrongly held opinions”? Really?  I’m guessing that I can “correct” this by ascribing to your opinions, right?

The Roper site you quoted shows a single poll (CNN) out of 841 polls, over Obama’s presidency, which gave him a 76% approval.  That’s like saying that a poll of kids’ opinions of broccoli ice cream found one kid who gave it a 9 out of 10, when the rest of the kids rated it much lower.  It would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.  

Yes, it’s true (according to Roper) that Obama had a poll that rated him a 76%. This is not evidence that he is “one of the best presidents this country has had in the last 30 years.”

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

colaguy wrote:
2seaoat wrote:I am beginning to question the initial incompetence of the web site.  There are thousands of developers who should have known the restriction on concurrent users on certain data bases.  The glitches and the fun which was made set such a low expectation, that now the President once again looks like a champ.

I am now doubting this was all by accident.  It fully allowed the critics to commit to the failure of ACA based on a numerical count, and then those critics have been thrashed about for the last two weeks and look like utter fools.  The President plays chess.  All the while the news was focused on this sign up numbers game, very little coverage has happened on the supposed withdrawal from afghanastan.  Also, it is highly suspicious the way the Ukranian crises has unwound as the Europeans have solidly supported the President.  The cries that the president is weak and Putin will walk all over him, just like the cries that he was a war monger and was going to drop bombs in Syria, all seem to be manipulated.   Is he really this smart, or is he simply lucky as he looks like one of the best presidents this country has had in 30 years?  I do not think some of this was an accident.

I highly doubt this. And, judging by recent approval ratings, a majority of Americans also do not approve of President Obama's performance.

You may be right, but except for Hillary, Mr. Obama would win in another landslide against the likes of the leading republican candidates. Face it, satisfying the bloodlust of their meat-eating right wing base almost guarantees a republican can't win. America, it would seem, is considerably more "middle" than far left or right.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

2seaoat wrote:His father was a Nazi financier, for God's sake. You should read FAMILY OF SECRETS.


so what?  Using that standard President Kennedy was the son of a bootlegger and his and President Bush's heroism in World War 2 are negated by some kind of stigma of birth.......you are very prejudiced.

I think the point that's trying to be made here is that both Kennedy and Bush I were the sons of elitist, immoral crooks who were happy with big profits no matter what the costs were to others.

Not much different, in fact, than the me-first greed of George Washington and many of the so-called "founding" fathers.

Once again, America was founded by the rich, for the rich and of the rich and it's still being run by big money.

Reality.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

2seaoat wrote:His father was a Nazi financier, for God's sake. You should read FAMILY OF SECRETS.


so what?  Using that standard President Kennedy was the son of a bootlegger and his and President Bush's heroism in World War 2 are negated by some kind of stigma of birth.......you are very prejudiced.

http://www.rense.com/general47/hero.htm

I am an 82 year old Navy pilot and I am outraged at television's depiction of George Bush Sr.'s Pacific experiences. Now, I hear a book is forthcoming - Unbelievable!!

I was in the Pacific at the same time as Bush and flew the same Avenger airplane. A small room in the rear of the Avenger was occupied by the radioman. The gunner went through the room to get up to his turret. Both wore a harness to which a chest type parachute could be attached - The gunner had to come down out of the turret to put on his chute.

Bush said he was hit by anti-aircraft fire and the plane caught fire. Bush's squadron was primarily used for patrol and saw very little combat. Bush claimed he warned the crew, over the intercom, to get out - got no answer and he could not yell back because of the armor plate behind him.

He decided they were dead, so he bailed out. First, he failed to say he switched his mike from radio to intercom. Then being blocked by the armor is a bold faced lie! There was a sizable gap on either side of the armor. I used this space to call to my crew several times.

The tough old Avenger simply did not catch fire!! It had self sealing gas tanks. In six months of operations, I never saw an Avenger catch fire. If the oil or hydraulic systems were damaged, great clouds of white smoke would stream out of the planhe. I have no idea how many times i saw planes returning to their carriers trailing smoke but never a fire.

What really happened? It was the pilots job to hold the plane level and slow it down so the crew could get out. Most certainly, the radioman was helping the gunner with his chute when Bush panicked and left the plane. Then the plane rolled into a dive giving the crew no chance. This story went through the fleet and all the Avenger pilots i knew were shocked at what they heard. I heard speculation of a Courts-Martial.

Bush was very young. By his own admission, he reacted under stress. It is terrifying to have the cockpit fill with smoke. Possibly, he can be excused for reacting to fear and accepting it as another war time tragedy - but he has been glorified on the History channel, a book is being published, and worst of all, an aircraft carrier is to be named for him. This is unbelievable!! Bush performed badly and was certainly no hero.

John S. McDonald

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » wow how machivellian......folks actually are dumb enough to fall into the trap

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum